Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 927 (3.47 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India & Anr vs Raj Kumar on 8 February, 2010

Km.Kamini Verma D/O Late Kamal Kishore ... vs Canara Bank Through Its Chairman & ... on 10 July, 2013

A perusal of aforequoted provisions contained in the new Scheme promulgated by State Bank of India reveals that the said Scheme also contains provision which is worded almost similarly to the provisions contained in Clause 9 of the new Scheme introduced by Canara Bank. Thus, so far as applicability of ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Allahabad Bank (supra) to the facts of instant case is concerned, I have no hesitation to hold that in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and another vs Raj Kumar (supra), the same does not have any application to the facts of instant case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - D K Upadhyaya - Full Document

Suit No.791/17 State Bank Of India vs . Raj Kumar on 26 September, 2018

In Page No.6/7 Suit no.791/17                                                                  State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar my opinion, considering the relationship between parties, ends of justice shall be served in case simple interest @ 9% p.a. is awarded from the date of filing of this suit till its realization on the   aforesaid   sum   of   Rs.   2,97,620/­/.   Thus,   the   Plaintiff   is awarded simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to be calculated on the sum of Rs. 2,97,620/­/­ from the date of filing of this suit i.e. 03.10.2017 till realization.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ku. Deepa Shrivastav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2022

16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in State Bank of 61 India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2022

16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in State Bank of 61 India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jitendra Singh Kumre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2022

16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in State Bank of 61 India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinoth Kumar vs The Secretary To Government on 19 March, 2012

73 The judgments in Durg Rajnandgaon Grameen Bank vs Suresh Kumar Shukla and others (supra), Union of India and others vs Southern Railway Employees Cooperative Stores Workmen Union and others (supra), State of Bank of India and another vs. Raj Kumar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, also do not advance the case of the petitioners, to hold that the decision of the Government in W.P.No.17520 of 2011 was hit by constructive resjudicata. In order to attract the provisions of constructive resjudicata, it is to be proved that matter has been finally decided between the parties. The earlier writs filed by the petitioner were remitted back for reconsideration. It was therefore, open to the department to take independent decision in accordance with law with the only limitation that the representation could not have been rejected again on the previous ground which was set aside by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Ku. Khushanjali Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2022

16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in State Bank of 61 India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next